The most underrated, overlooked lens I have is the EF-S 60mm macro. It does everything from macro to landscapes and usually gives a unique look. I can usually tell a picture taken with this lens.

I agree with this, the EF-S 60 is probably my sharpest lens, and that's including the 70-200 f4 IS. Get the focus right and it's corner to corner sharp (macro obviously excepted-unless photographing a brick wall!), even at 100% on the 7D. Compact as well, and great value!

canon rumors FORUM

When I had it, I would say the 85 1.8. I feel it often gets overlooked by CR folks (and folks on other serious photo forums) for the far more expensive, heavier, slower 1.2 version. While the 1.2 version produces some amazing results (and I may end up with one eventually) the 1.8 offers one of the best price/performance ratios in the Canon system IMO. Compact, inconspicuous and has decent reach and speed for close-range sports on 1.6x (bonus points here - the 1.2 is too slow for sports on a non-pro body). Really doesn't get much better than that...that and the "sister lens" 100 f2.

Only reason I gave up the 85 was to help fund an upgrade from the 70-200 f4 to the 70-200 2.8 (don't regret at all...would do again)...still though, that was a tough lens to part with. There has been many a time where I either wished I had it or contemplated re-purchasing it...probably would go for the 100 f2 if I did it all over again.

EF 35mm f/2 -- very sharp in center (in corners not so much), short minimum focusing distance, very accurate AF -- this is a viable alternative to my 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II in many situations, it's way lighter, it's way smaller. I often use it for video (manual focus is very OK, fairly accurate and barely audible). It's excellent for closeup portraits, with face details, like eyes.

I wanted this lens pretty bad since it came out. It did kind of immediately get thrown into the equally-priced, faster-aperture Sigma's shadow. But depending on the person (like one who shoots video), it might be the obvious choice over sigmas 35 1.4. Thats what it seems like to me anyway. This lens is one of them I had in mind when I created this thread. Whenever it ends up on sale I'm probably going to snatch it up... maybe earlier..lol

I suppose you're talking about the IS version. I love the older f/2 (non-IS) for its tinyness as mentioned earlier.

Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.

Why do you say this? I use the 17-40 as a standard lens on crop and it performs very well for the most part IMO, as I understand it it's biggest weakness is used at the wide end without stopping down on FF. Using it on crop negates most of this issue.

Excellent little lens! I just sold mine because of disuse (but the 400D I used it on has been replaced with a Sony NEX).

Yes it's a good lens. I have messed around with quite a few starter telephoto lenses over the years, and this is the only one that does not disappoint. It's no L lens, but it's decently sharp optically. Just stop down a little when at the long end. The 5x zoom and low weight make it a great choice for lightweight travel, hiking, and other uses in strong light. I have a 2'x3' canvas wrap printed from a photo taken with this lens, and it looks like it was taken with far more expensive and bulky gear.

Excellent little lens! I just sold mine because of disuse (but the 400D I used it on has been replaced with a Sony NEX).

Yes it's a good lens. I have messed around with quite a few starter telephoto lenses over the years, and this is the only one that does not disappoint. It's no L lens, but it's decently sharp optically. Just stop down a little when at the long end. The 5x zoom and low weight make it a great choice for lightweight travel, hiking, and other uses in strong light. I have a 2'x3' canvas wrap printed from a photo taken with this lens, and it looks like it was taken with far more expensive and bulky gear.

Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.

Why do you say this? I use the 17-40 as a standard lens on crop and it performs very well for the most part IMO, as I understand it it's biggest weakness is used at the wide end without stopping down on FF. Using it on crop negates most of this issue.

Don't get me wrong, I own and like the 17-40, but I don't think owners of the 16-35 II would agree with you that the 17-40 is the better lens. Reviews I have seen suggest they perform similarly at the same apertures with the exception that the 16-35 is a bit better at the wide end around f4-5.6. My main reason for opting for the 17-40 was it's compact size and low weight, weather sealing, decent optical performance and (compared to most L lenses) reasonable price!

Don't get me wrong, I own and like the 17-40, but I don't think owners of the 16-35 II would agree with you that the 17-40 is the better lens. Reviews I have seen suggest they perform similarly at the same apertures with the exception that the 16-35 is a bit better at the wide end around f4-5.6. My main reason for opting for the 17-40 was it's compact size and low weight, weather sealing, decent optical performance and (compared to most L lenses) reasonable price!

From many reviews I've been led to believe the 17-40 generally outperforms its wider aperture sisters. In any case I got it for the exact same reasons you mentioned

Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.

Why do you say this? I use the 17-40 as a standard lens on crop and it performs very well for the most part IMO, as I understand it it's biggest weakness is used at the wide end without stopping down on FF. Using it on crop negates most of this issue.

The 17-40 is Canon's best full frame WA zoom.

I'm using a 17-40L on crop as a standard zoom because I plan (for CR regulars yes, really :-p) to upgrade to ff sometime and most of all the L is sturdy and sealed which makes a great difference because I regularly shoot in snow and dusty/dirty outdoor conditions. Just be sure to replace the lens hood with a 83J...

... however @f4 the 17-40L is clearly lacking in sharpness and except for the above reasons I really wouldn't recommend it on crop, even though it has a very good price nowadays esp. with Canon cashback rebates.

Only reason I gave up the 85 was to help fund an upgrade from the 70-200 f4 to the 70-200 2.8 (don't regret at all...would do again)...still though, that was a tough lens to part with. There has been many a time where I either wished I had it or contemplated re-purchasing it...probably would go for the 100 f2 if I did it all over again.

Hi Act444,Just curious - what would make you go for the 100 f2 over the 85 1.8? I haven't used either, but am contemplating getting one of them (or possibly sigma 85 1.4) for use on a 6D, and I'm intrigued that even though you liked the 85 you'd choose the 100 now.Cheers

There was a time when I used to shoot with the 400L f/5.6 ... The most comments I used to get were ... Can you still buy these new? and the old faithful ... why this lens, this dodo doesn't even ZOOM!

Logged

I took a hiatus from CR for a year and a half. The discussions haven't changed much. Excellent information is still being shared while people bitching about Canon cameras are still bitching and haven't moved on to Sony